comments_image -

"Organic" Skin Care to Go Unregulated

Recent changes in the USDA's National Organic Policy will force health-conscious consumers to read their labels closely.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

When purchasing certain products labeled "organic", or "certified organic," customers will have to shop with a very sharp eye. Recent pressure on the USDA to honor an exemption clause in the National Organic Policy (NOPS) with regard to skin care products, cotton and dietary supplements has been successful, which will leave these industries unregulated with regard to the term organic. According to the Preamble on Applicability and Clarification, "the ultimate labeling of cosmetics, body care products, and dietary supplements, however, is outside the scope of these regulations."

For the record, the National Organic Standards as they apply to food are very clear -- a product containing 100 percent certified organic ingredients might be labeled "Certified Organic" with no synthetic ingredients. A product containing 95 percent organic ingredients may be labeled "organic with no synthetic ingredients." Anything less then 95 percent may use the term organic with regard to the specific organic ingredient only.

Many large and influential Health and Beauty Aid (HABA) companies have been lobbying USDA to relax or completely exempt these standards for personal care. Their main complaints are that they weren't given enough time to get ready, even though members of the trade association have been intimately involved in the evolution of the policy statement drafted in 1990. They also maintain that skin care products cannot be made without synthetics, enhancers, and/or chemical stabilizers and preservatives (even though Grandma's been doing it for years). Tom Hutchinson, the Quality Assurance Director of the Organic Trade Association, stated that the HABA industry's biggest "hurdle will be to convince the overall organic industry that the synthetics it uses in processing products are as necessary as the allowable synthetics in food processing."

The recent reports of the USDA being shackled by the exemption clause in the Federal regulations for skin care products has already resulted in a virtual free-for-all as products passing themselves off as organic and certified organic have begun to flood the market. Ads for certified organic products are already appearing in mainstream magazines whose ad deadlines closed months ago. Many of these products have as little as 50 percent organic ingredients, and an alarming number have only a tiny percentage of organic ingredients or none at all. Some companies are claiming that all of their ingredients are certified organic including the controversial class of synthetic parabens and glycols such as methylpropylparaben and propylene glycol, along with many chemically derived botanical extracts.

Highlighting the difference under the new standards, one leading HABA manufacturer recently published the following statement on their website: "[Ours] is the only brand in the industry that lists the percentage of certified organic ingredients on their labels and that each of their products contains at least 50 percent certified organic ingredients."

Already, confusion and mayhem are brewing in the HABA industry with regard to what the standards for organic are for food, what they should be for personal care, and who can use the word as part of their company name or on the front of their label. It looks a lot like the fox guarding the henhouse, explaining that he'll eat only 5 percent of the chickens.

However, the true victims in this new chapter will be the customers that trust the "organic" label, who expect (rightfully so) that skin care manufacturers are held accountable by regulations that apply to food.

Many will be led to believe these products are better, healthier and therefore may cost more. There is also a growing awareness among the health care industry and consumers that regulations for organic skin care products should be stricter then that of food due to the skins absorbency rate, which is ten times greater. The bottom line should not be determined by the gross profit margin for manufacturers but by the health and well being of the customer, because that which we lather on our skin should be as pure if not purer of synthetics and chemicals then the food we eat.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | Washington Monthly

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]